RIAA Piracy Tax?
On this week’s edition of Copyright 2.0, I learned of a new idea that is gaining interest among the heads of some record companies: A “piracy” tax. As reported by Wired:
At the music industry trade show MIDEM last year, John Kennedy, the head of IFPI — the RIAA’s international affiliate organization — offered modest support for the kind of licensing fee Griffin and Jenner propose. “It’s a model worth looking at,” he said at a press conference. “If the ISPs want to come to us and look for a blanket license for an amount per month, let’s engage in that discussion.”
Jonathan Bailey, one of the hosts of Copyright 2.0, was open to the idea. Charging a flat rate to everybody (five dollars is the amount being discussed today) for the “right” to download your music sounds better than the losing battle the RIAA is facing today, right? There is some precedent for the idea of forced royalties and compulsory licenses, too. Bailey didn’t totally endorse the idea, but he said that it might be a good place to start until a better idea comes along. I enjoy hearing and reading Bailey’s opinion, but this time I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is a horrible idea that completely shreds the idea of copyright and intellectual property.
I think the problem becomes self-evident once one brings the definition of “copyright” into the issue. A copyright is the right to control the distribution and use of a piece of intellectual property. This right is initially secured by the creator of that property simply by the fact that he created it. Since he did the work to create it, he or she gets to decide what is done with it. Like any right over material property, it can be sold, exchanged, or given away. The owner owns it, so he gets to decide. That’s what copyright is about.
Now apply this concept to the idea of allowing everybody to use a compulsory license to download whatever music they want, in exchange for a $5 tax that is collected and distributed to copyright holders according to some process. Obviously, there are some conflicts. Copyright says that the owner of a creation gets to decide how to use that creation, but a compulsory license says that paying a tax allows anybody can download the copyright holder’s property — with or without permission of the copyright holder. Copyright says that a the owner of a creation can charge whatever he or she wishes for his music, but the compulsory license establishes a set rate for everybody — with or without permission of the copyright holder. All of the “benefits” that a compulsory license might bring about are at the expense of the artist’s rights.
When copyright is discussed today, I think too much focus is placed on the idea of making sure that artists receive some form of “fair” compensation for their work (I don’t mean to include Bailey in this group, now I’m just talking in general). When they’re not constrained by the rights of artists, people are free to imagine all sorts of “new models” that might bring more money to the artist than today’s system. And the funny thing is, some of these imaginary systems might, in fact, bring in more money for some artists if they were ever put in action. Some artists might even prefer it over today’s sytem, too. I doubt it, but I guess it’s possible, especially if one cherry-picks the right examples. However, any additional income will be at the cost of something that’s priceless. Control over one’s work is something that nobody should be forced to give up.
There are a number of other problems with a tax like this. How is the appropriate rate established? How would an artist receive compensation from a tax like this? How can one accurately measure downloads, anyway? These are questions that have no good answer. Like most “new models,” the system becomes pretty arbitrary when the details are established. It probably doesn’t matter, anyway: I doubt the RIAA would ever agree to a blanket, compulsory license in exchange for this tax, even if they were allowed to control the income. If the RIAA pushed a tax, it would be to make up for their losses from illegal file sharing. In other words, it would still be illegal to download music, but you’d pay the tax anyway. Even if you didn’t illegally distribute or download music.
The main source of the music industry’s trouble is the lack of understanding and/or respect for intellectual property, by both consumers and the recording industry. Gimmicks like this tax aren’t going to solve anything.
Tags: [copyright 2.0, isp, isp tax, piracy, plagarismtoday, riaa, tax]Comments
Temporary sales taxes
Ten years ago, Lee’s Summit approved a temporary sales tax increase to pay for road improvements. Now that the tax is about to expire, the city is asking that they extend the tax for another ten years. The KC Star recommends that voters to approve the tax, of course.
It makes me question: Just how many of the so-called “temporary” taxes that voters approve actually expire?
Tags: [tax]